LCP
Main content load
Priority

For slow WordPress, admin, and WooCommerce paths. We capture the baseline, order repairs by impact and risk, compare staging, and assign release, rollback, and monitoring ownership before launch.

The problem
People browse and shop online with very little patience for a slow site. When a page drags, they leave. Google's Core Web Vitals now measure that experience on every page, not just your homepage, so a single fast landing page no longer saves a slow site.
performance diagnostic
We review the whole site and real user paths, not a single homepage score. The repair order balances user impact, risk, and effort.
LCP
Main content load
Priority
INP
Interaction response
Reviewing
CLS
Layout stability
Can improve
Audit coverage
Three ways in: a free audit, a hosting and runtime review, or a separate technical SEO scope.
Audit
One of our team members reviews your site and reports where it loses speed. The audit costs nothing.

Hosting
We check whether hosting, cache behavior, or the application runtime belongs in the repair queue before recommending a move.

SEO
When the audit finds crawlability or on-page issues outside the speed repair, we can scope that work separately and keep the boundary clear.


Engineering scope
Caching plugins and a hosting upgrade used to be enough. Passing today's Core Web Vitals often means fixing code, database queries, third-party scripts, and cache behavior together. The audit shows which layer is actually slow before we scope the repair.
Diagnosis to ownership
A PageSpeed result can move while checkout, admin, or a campaign template still has a problem. We use the score as one signal and set acceptance against the paths that matter to the site.
Acceptance only covers agreed pages, recorded conditions, and functional paths. Hosting, third-party scripts, content, traffic, access, and release dependencies remain visible in the scope.
We record the agreed pages, user paths, device profile, cache state, and site conditions before changing the stack. Existing errors and access limits stay visible.
Inspectable artifacts
Each repair names the symptom, likely cause, affected path, dependency, risk, and owner. The queue makes the order and exclusions reviewable before implementation.
Inspectable artifacts
We compare the agreed paths against the baseline under recorded conditions. Functional checks and open exceptions sit beside the performance evidence.
Inspectable artifacts
The release brief names the go or no-go owner, backup point, rollback trigger, release steps, monitoring checks, and escalation path before production changes begin.
Inspectable artifacts
Acceptance evidence
Fit and ownership
This works best with staging access, representative URLs, and an agreed release window. If one is unavailable, the repair scope narrows and the remaining risk stays in the release brief.
Standard pricing
Project bands and monthly plans are published in one place, and every quote is written against your actual scope.
How scope, acceptance evidence, and release decisions work.
Send your URL and the paths that are causing trouble. A team member reviews the request and typically replies within one business day.
Get a free estimate